U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Wages and salaries jump by 3.1%, highest level in a decade

 

Weekly jobless claims are at their lowest level since 1969

 

Nice. Funny how it corresponds with the hard line immigration admin's policies

 

It's almost as if Catos central meme assumption that Americans won't do certain jobs was bullshit

 

Obama's DHS chief Jeh Johnson says 100K border apprehensions in a month is a ‘crisis’

 

See Roxas I base my views on results not warm feelings like you 

How hot is the job market? So hot that some businesses are throwing 'hiring parties'

 

 

Wow Americans getting a break. Can't have that

Record Job Openings In A Tight Labor Market - Record Job Openings In A Tight Labor Market

[Flame Dragon]

I think they should only open fire on the people who don't go through a port of entry.

Don't call for the murder of people. Like, just don't.

[vla1ne]

Nah, considering how modern America was founded on invading another country that belonged to its indigenous people, the United States has no such "right" to block off other immigrants. If you steal someone else's home, I'm not going to support you if you think you now get to decide who gets to come into that home. Give me a reason to support that hypocrisy.

Haven't we been over this already? Let me reiterate it if you forgot:

"Not playing that game. Americans, the people who are born and raised in the United States of America by legal immigrants. I couldn't care less about who stole what from who before i was a semen drop in a nutsack. Indians lost that battle, america now is not theirs, and unless you really want me to justify the eradication or complete takeover of mexico, we aren't playing sins of the great great grandfather game, or who asking who really deserves what land.

 

Nations have borders, and rules for crossing said borders. There is only so much room in america, and controlling the borders that allow the flow of people coming in and out as best as possible makes perfect sense. Making sure you know who is coming into your home, and ensuring that unsavory elements and unknown foreign factors are kept to a minimum."

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Don't call for the murder of people. Like, just don't.

This sounds to me like a poorly constructed pathos based statement. 

 

Are we not allowed to call for the death of Daesh? The fact remains cartels use these people to smuggle opiates that in turn kills thousands of Americans per kilogram. In my eyes, these people are scummy foreign agents who are actively killing my countrymen. 

 

Murder as it is legally defined has some merit of pre-meditation. No one is suggesting we go and hunt down people. It's more self-defense than "murder" given they have the fully ability not to illegally cross our border with toxins. As a general policy, American lives would likely be saved by having a more draconian border enforcement policy.

 

I stand by my post regarding said terrorists.

[Phantom Roxas]

Haven't we been over this already? Let me reiterate it if you forgot:

"Not playing that game. Americans, the people who are born and raised in the United States of America by legal immigrants. I couldn't care less about who stole what from who before i was a semen drop in a nutsack. Indians lost that battle, america now is not theirs, and unless you really want me to justify the eradication or complete takeover of mexico, we aren't playing sins of the great great grandfather game, or who asking who really deserves what land.

 

Nations have borders, and rules for crossing said borders. There is only so much room in america, and controlling the borders that allow the flow of people coming in and out as best as possible makes perfect sense. Making sure you know who is coming into your home, and ensuring that unsavory elements and unknown foreign factors are kept to a minimum."

 

It did not work last time, so what difference does it make to repeat your argument again without changing anything? If you do not care what happened to Native Americans, to their borders, and how the people who came into their home abused that, then why should you expect anyone else to be concerned about immigrants that you think pose as much of a problem as colonists actually did?

 

The people born and raised in the United States of America to the families of "legal" immigrants have just as much right to be here as "illegal" immigrants. The only thing that decides what makes someone legal or illegal is the people in charge declaring "Because I say so."

 

Asking who really deserves what land is exactly what you're doing when you claim that illegal immigrants have "no right" to enter America. You're already "playing that game".

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Planning to address my point on wages and how illegals deprive america of them Roxas? Or Horu's question?

 

Quoting them in case you missed them unintentionally :)

 

Wages and salaries jump by 3.1%, highest level in a decade

 

Weekly jobless claims are at their lowest level since 1969

 

Nice. Funny how it corresponds with the hard line immigration admin's policies

 

It's almost as if Catos central meme assumption that Americans won't do certain jobs was bullshit

 

Obama's DHS chief Jeh Johnson says 100K border apprehensions in a month is a ‘crisis’

 

See Roxas I base my views on results not warm feelings like you 

How hot is the job market? So hot that some businesses are throwing 'hiring parties'

 

 

Wow Americans getting a break. Can't have that

Record Job Openings In A Tight Labor Market - Record Job Openings In A Tight Labor Market

Ok. Let's put it into easier terms.
Let's say somebody breaks into your house, uses your electricity, water, gas, cable, internet, bed, eats your food and refuses to leave. How would you feel about that person?

[vla1ne]

It's not an argument, it's a fact. It does not matter who took what from whom 200+ years ago, it's america today. end of story. we are not playing that game.

 

"There is only so much room in america, there are only so many opportunities, and controlling the borders that allow the flow of people coming in and out as best as possible to ensure that those coming into america have an actual desire to become americans, makes perfect sense"

 

"wall+personnel+surveillance programs would be far more effective than just people and /or cameras.  they are all capable of being implemented at the same time, and they all increase the efficacy of each other "

 

Please address these two arguments directly. you have yet to do so, and i have stated them multiple times. 

[Flame Dragon]

This sounds to me like a poorly constructed pathos based statement. 

 

Are we not allowed to call for the death of Daesh? The fact remains cartels use these people to smuggle opiates that in turn kills thousands of Americans per kilogram. In my eyes, these people are scummy foreign agents who are actively killing my countrymen. 

 

Murder as it is legally defined has some merit of pre-meditation. No one is suggesting we go and hunt down people. It's more self-defense than "murder" given they have the fully ability not to illegally cross our border with toxins. As a general policy, American lives would likely be saved by having a more draconian border enforcement policy.

 

I stand by my post regarding said terrorists.

Your post was about shooting people entering the country illegally. That is LITERALLY the only thing I care about right now. No, you can not say that. Period.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Going off of vla1ne's point on directly addressing arguments made, I'd like to remind everyone to do so. People, in general, have been getting sloppy about it, some more than others. Also, no calls for killing people whose only crime (statutorily atm) is crossing the border illegally.

 

As to Horu, it's a bit more complicated than that, though I get the point. You are concerned about moochers. Honestly, I wouldn't be happy in that situation. It's a reason why Welfare works the way it does (see PRWORA from the Clinton administration as an example). However, why stop "everybody" from entering legally over a year that some may be moochers.

 

And here is where I let people in on something. Illegal immigration shouldn't happen. It does, imo, because the legal avenues tend to be too restrictive and time consuming for people on varying degrees of desperation. Citizenship isn't easy to get here either, so saying asylum seekers should get citizenship after a year or leave just doesn't make sense (this is assuming asylum seekers don't have a fast track in place). What I'm saying is that legal immigration and citizenship should be made easier, within reason, because I do agree that we should watch out for those who would do us harm, but not at the expense of others.

[Horu]

Going off of vla1ne's point on directly addressing arguments made, I'd like to remind everyone to do so. People, in general, have been getting sloppy about it, some more than others. Also, no calls for killing people whose only crime (statutorily atm) is crossing the border illegally.

 

As to Horu, it's a bit more complicated than that, though I get the point. You are concerned about moochers. Honestly, I wouldn't be happy in that situation. It's a reason why Welfare works the way it does (see PRWORA from the Clinton administration as an example). However, why stop "everybody" from entering legally over a year that some may be moochers.

 

And here is where I let people in on something. Illegal immigration shouldn't happen. It does, imo, because the legal avenues tend to be too restrictive and time consuming for people on varying degrees of desperation. Citizenship isn't easy to get here either, so saying asylum seekers should get citizenship after a year or leave just doesn't make sense (this is assuming asylum seekers don't have a fast track in place). What I'm saying is that legal immigration and citizenship should be made easier, within reason, because I do agree that we should watch out for those who would do us harm, but not at the expense of others.

Asking somebody that is given asylum and has everything they need to apply for citizenship within a year isn't that extreme. A year is a rather lengthy amount of time to apply for citizenship. You'd be amazed what you can actually accomplish in a year. So asking somebody who is given a free place to live with everything they need paid for via government funds to apply for citizenship within a year or leave isn't that bad of a deal. You are giving somebody a legitimate chance to rebuild their life without the worry of food and shelter. So what's so bad about giving them a year to apply for citizenship?

[vla1ne]

Striker, while i see where you're coming from with your view on illegal immigration, when you say "Illegal immigration shouldn't happen. It does, imo, because the legal avenues tend to be too restrictive and time consuming for people on varying degrees of desperation." the thing is, even if america weren't accepting any immigrants, that would not then grant citizens of other countries the right to come across illegally. That would be akin to saying japan or or Europe, or any other number of first world countries have a responsibility to accept people from other countries simply because they're more prosperous than said countries. That isn't how it works, and that's not how it should work for a lot of reasons. The argument could be made that we would be doing a good thing to accept them into the country, and we do in fact have rules that are set up to be as rational as possible without being overly harsh towards the population, but that is up to the discretion of the country itself, aka the people within it, to determine. not everybody is going to get in, and the more people who want to enter, the slower things'll get. reforming it will help with this, but fact is, people will be rejected still, people will not be able to afford getting over here in the first place without selling themselves in some manner or another, and people will try to get in illegally still. A wall is meant for more than just the honest people that can't get in fast enough.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

I may have been unclear with that opening remark. Illegal immigration shouldn't happen, but the reasons I listed are part of why it does, based on how I see it. Prosperity is another reason, I do agree on that. Also, I did say within reason. Not everyone should be accepted, yes, but the process should be easier for them to try and gain entry. And if I recall correctly, the US runs on a quota system, right?

 

Horu, the issue is that the process of citizenship takes more than a year. Unless that point includes those in the process of gaining citizenship, then it's unfeasible. Why, because one needs a Green Card, be in the US for 5 consecutive years, live in the same place for at least 3 months. Asylum seekers can't do that in a year, unless there is some fast track process I'm unaware of.

[Phantom Roxas]

Planning to address my point on wages and how illegals deprive america of them Roxas? Or Horu's question?

 

Quoting them in case you missed them unintentionally :)

 

Striker answered Horu's question perfectly, and I don't think there's much else I could add to that, but I will respond to his most recent post if that helps.

 

You shot your own argument in the foot about wages. You claimed that the presence of illegal immigrants lowers wages, then "proved" that by… linking to article about how wages increased. Nice one.

 

The second link mentions how Trump's policies will harm the economy, not support it. You've completely failed to establish how any of that proves illegal immigrants lower wages, and instead showed that Trump's policies are more likely to harm the economy in the long run.

 

Absolutely spectacular job, Winter. I'm not sure what more can be done now that you've killed your own argument.

 

It's not an argument, it's a fact. It does not matter who took what from whom 200+ years ago, it's america today. end of story. we are not playing that game.

 

"There is only so much room in america, there are only so many opportunities, and controlling the borders that allow the flow of people coming in and out as best as possible to ensure that those coming into america have an actual desire to become americans, makes perfect sense"

 

"wall+personnel+surveillance programs would be far more effective than just people and /or cameras.  they are all capable of being implemented at the same time, and they all increase the efficacy of each other "

 

Please address these two arguments directly. you have yet to do so, and i have stated them multiple times.

 

How much room in America is at risk of being used up by illegal immigrants? I agree that there is a geographical limit, so now the burden on you is to show how illegal immigrants are pushing the country to that limit.

 

Yes, there are only so many opportunities. And thankfully, immigrants tend to pursue opportunities that other citizens typically do not seek, and thankfully help to boost the economy.

 

The backlog of naturalization applications has actually skyrocketed under Trump, so it seems that a significant amount of immigrants do possess that desire to become Americans, but the Trump administration is making it much more difficult. In other words, the desire is there, so I hope that answers your question. The problem then is why the administration would allow that backlog to increase to such a degree.

 

Actually, the wall is only able to receive funding because plans to boost hirings fell short of the mark, so that doesn't make me confident that they can be implemented at the same time. Your theory was tested, and it failed. If anything, it sounds like the wall and the personnel are competing for the same funds.

 

Asking somebody that is given asylum and has everything they need to apply for citizenship within a year isn't that extreme. A year is a rather lengthy amount of time to apply for citizenship. You'd be amazed what you can actually accomplish in a year. So asking somebody who is given a free place to live with everything they need paid for via government funds to apply for citizenship within a year or leave isn't that bad of a deal. You are giving somebody a legitimate chance to rebuild their life without the worry of food and shelter. So what's so bad about giving them a year to apply for citizenship?

 

Giving them a year to apply for citizenship is perfectly fine, but the article I linked above about the backlog increasing did contain this bit.

 

“They may be waiting for as much of 20 months after submitting a 21-page application, paid the $730 fee, submitted their fingerprints for a security a check and then sat and waited to take an exam."

 

So even if by all accounts an immigration met every requirement possible, a year is not enough. They would be kept in a backlog for much longer than a year, so by the time that year expires, they would have done everything right, and could still be criminalized through no fault of their own, simply because they were forced to wait for so long.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

No? A tighter immigration system has created a more hot labor market which has in turn created higher wages

 

What the second link ACTUALLY says is that people are worried that this boom will end when Trump's policy effects fade. Ie, the policy worked, and in the future when it's effects are gone, we'll back back to a more shitty reality

 

Reading Comprehension 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Your post was about shooting people entering the country illegally. That is LITERALLY the only thing I care about right now. No, you can not say that. Period.

What about Human smugglers? How about the rapists?

 

I get that your political views might differ to mine, but I'm not really clear why you're silencing a political reality across the world. Most countries don't take kindly to this kind of violent immigration. Italy lets them drown. Russia shoots them. They just vanish in China. Outside of western Europe the people you're defending do get death.

 

You're likely going to warn me for not going along with your dogma here. But I'm not inciting violence against any particular individual, but rather noting a potential solution to an escalating problem. Dangerous people are coming here because worst case they get to camp out inside the US for a few months, maybe hen deliver their anchor baby and stay here. 

 

People with actual concerns have a viable pathway to enter the US in the form of port of entries. The United States legally has to process asylum cases. So at the very least you're getting a reprieve for a short time. What doesn't get a reprieve are people smuggling heroin, women, guns that wont get through a POE. If there is a strong dis-incentive not to cross illegally, we might actually cut down on the number of American lives lost. 

 

In 2014, 79 percent of the heroin seized by the DEA was Mexican white powder.

 

https://www.briarwooddetox.com/blog/drug-trafficking-sources/

 

Overdose fatalities from heroin alone have more than tripled since 2010, reaching 10,574 in 2014

 

So that's 8354 Americans dead due to these people. That's more than Iraq, more than 9/11, more than ISIS, and Afghanistan.

 

So I ask you again, why are you defending people that kill more Americans than ISIS

 Also, no calls for killing people whose only crime (statutorily atm) is crossing the border illegally.

 

This is a strawman striker. Am I thirsting to gun down women and children. God no. Do I think killing a smuggler with half a kilo of Fetynal up his ass over letting him sell it in the US and kill a 1000 Americans? Yes

 

The people who need asylum or come for economic reasons can largely do so through the POEs

 

I will find you the stat, but the people arrested at the non POEs often aren't even the parents of the kids they bring with them. 

 

They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people

[vla1ne]

  

How much room in America is at risk of being used up by illegal immigrants? I agree that there is a geographical limit, so now the burden on you is to show how illegal immigrants are pushing the country to that limit.

 

Yes, there are only so many opportunities. And thankfully, immigrants tend to pursue opportunities that other citizens typically do not seek, and thankfully help to boost the economy.

 

The backlog of naturalization applications has actually skyrocketed under Trump, so it seems that a significant amount of immigrants do possess that desire to become Americans, but the Trump administration is making it much more difficult. In other words, the desire is there, so I hope that answers your question. The problem then is why the administration would allow that backlog to increase to such a degree.

 

Actually, the wall is only able to receive funding because plans to boost hirings fell short of the mark, so that doesn't make me confident that they can be implemented at the same time. Your theory was tested, and it failed. If anything, it sounds like the wall and the personnel are competing for the same funds.

 

America only has so many jobs, and so much money to circulate. Illegal Immigration is, in effect, an unlimited expansion of population without granting enough time for the marked to accommodate them, and very little tax revenue coming in from them. For example, the famous sanctuary city San Francisco is currently well over what anybody would consider a reasonable limit https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/29308-sanctuary-city-by-the-bay-is-knee-deep-in-filth illegal immigration has an infinite range, and the only way to curb it is to never let it expand beyond control as we clearly are doing. If you recall the caravans of yesteryear, tens of thousands of people were attempting to come into america for good. and people were actively demanding to let them in after trump decided to express the same apprehension that they did. How far would that number increase before you consider it to many? My brake point is at zero, the very start. If they aren't applying legally to enter, then they do not get entry period. We can monitor the number of applicants so long as they come across legally, and we can verify them better as well, shutting down entry if things grow too quickly. This prevents the net negatives from occurring and taking advantage of the current programs that we shouldn't even be granting them.

 

 

Your citation is about legal immigrants. The discussion here is about the negatives of illegal immigrants. Don't make that mistake please. As far as legal immigrants are concerned, the US has no obligation to accept any, but it is completely acceptable, and very logical, to accept people who pass the requirements as citizens, as i've agreed with and stated prior.

 

 

I agree, the backlog is large and should be worked on, but it's pointless to the context of this discussion, and isn't something that actually affects the rest of the argument. [spoiler=in addition] your own citation has the reason explained bluntly by an actual worker.

 

"A United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) spokesman strongly contested the reports findings Monday afternoon.

"The truth is that the total number of people the U.S. naturalizes each year has remained virtually unchanged. What we’re looking at is a dishonest and desperate attempt by open borders advocates to undermine the work of Homeland Security officials, law enforcement and the administration to protect the integrity of our immigration system and uphold the rule of law," said spokesman Michael Bars in a statement. "The current pending workload does not equate to a backlog — it’s a statistic used in the USCIS report to include every application for naturalization filed including those filed in recent days and weeks — and is being inaccurately portrayed as evidence of delays"

"Many of these cases, which can remain pending from one quarter to the next, are well within the processing time goal established by the agency with variances being a direct result of geography and capacity. USCIS will continue to process all applications and petitions in a judicious and comprehensive manner and will do so as efficiently and expeditiously as possible in accordance with the law," he added. "We reject the inaccurate claims of those fundamentally opposed to this effort."

The agency naturalizes approximately 700,00 to 750,000 as citizens a year, according to USCIS, and naturalized 716,000 people in fiscal year 2017."

 

 

The number of people admitted year to year has remained relatively static, the sheer number of applicants has risen though among other things. He even explained how the number is a standard one given often, and that things were being twisted to attack trump. that seems to check out properly, as the issue is generally unrelated to trump at the time the article was written (the whole immigration problem was a thing, but he had yet to make any major moves relating to the southern border)

 

 

Funny how one of the main narratives of the article from the cited detractors of trumps immigration acceptance is about adding voters though. Why exactly would that be the first thing to argue on when discussing legal immigrants? Are they coming here just to vote or something?

 

 

 

The wall has only received funding because trump has managed to pull through an executive order. The hiring budget for border patrol has nothing to do with the wall budget. If you want to go that route, then I could easily argue that the 10 billion we plan to have dropped this year into south america/mexico could be spent on the wall instead and have it funded for a year by that being added in like trump seems to be thinking right now. Or i could argue that the money that was blocked by congress from the pentagon would have been usable on the wall, or that the money we saved b pulling out of syria could be spent on the wall. The list goes on. if we're talking money pulled from one source to another in the government we could go on for days like that.. But even before all that, you said literally nothing about my actual point, please read it again: "wall+personnel+surveillance programs would be far more effective than just people and /or cameras.  they are all capable of being implemented at the same time, and they all increase the efficacy of each other "

Please respond directly to that. attacking the cost does nothing to the actual argument. why exactly would a wall+people+cameras be ineffective? I'm not talking about the cost, we can find money for that all day long. I'm talking when all is said and done. What is it about that combination that is actually not better border protection than just open borders, or just one to two aspects of the combination? What about my point is incapable of working together with other implementations? What about a wall is incompatible with the rest of border security?

 

 

 Giving them a year to apply for citizenship is perfectly fine, but the article I linked above about the backlog increasing did contain this bit.

“They may be waiting for as much of 20 months after submitting a 21-page application, paid the $730 fee, submitted their fingerprints for a security a check and then sat and waited to take an exam."

 

So even if by all accounts an immigration met every requirement possible, a year is not enough. They would be kept in a backlog for much longer than a year, so by the time that year expires, they would have done everything right, and could still be criminalized through no fault of their own, simply because they were forced to wait for so long.

 

He said apply, not qualify for citizenship. They have 360 days to at least take the first steps. That's by no means unreasonable.

[Phantom Roxas]

vla1ne, I did respond directly to your point. Demanding that I keep doing so, even after I've already done it, is a pointless circlejerk that gets us nowhere. Either accept the answer already or stop repeating the same questions over and over again. You stated that "They are all capable of being implemented at the same time." I didn't "attack" anything, I responded to that by saying that we have literally seen that the government is incapable of doing that.
 
If you ask a question. and I answer it, and you ask the exact same question again, and I give you a new answer that second time, and you still ask that same question again, because I didn't answer it the "right" way, don't expect me to waste my time answering it a third time.
 

I agree, the backlog is large and should be worked on, but it's pointless to the context of this discussion, and isn't something that actually affects the rest of the argument.

Jesus Christ.
 
You specifically asked me to address your points, which included "controlling the borders that allow the flow of people coming in and out as best as possible to ensure that those coming into america have an actual desire to become americans"
 
I addressed it.
 
It's part of the argument.
 
vla1ne, if you ask me to answer your question, and I do, and then you state that the answer I give you is "pointless to the context of this discussion", why are you even asking me to address your argument in the first place?

[Flame Dragon]

What about Human smugglers? How about the rapists?

Except your post did not have qualifiers. You said the people illegally crossing the boarder should be shot. That was it. You called for use of lethal force against people whose only known crime was illegal entry, a crime that unless things have recently changed is only a misdemeanor. You also can not tell who are actually problematic elements and who aren't just by sight, so the shoot on sight position you seem to be advocating for is just you advocating for the murder of people, who to my knowledge, are a large portion women and children. This is wrong. Stop.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Except your post did not have qualifiers. You said the people illegally crossing the boarder should be shot. That was it. You called for use of lethal force against people whose only known crime was illegal entry, a crime that unless things have recently changed is only a misdemeanor. You also can not tell who are actually problematic elements and who aren't just by sight, so the shoot on sight position you seem to be advocating for is just you advocating for the murder of people, who to my knowledge, are a large portion women and children. This is wrong. Stop.

The alternative is to let the worst elements in as well. Furthermore, there was a story about how a woman hid drugs in a bag in her vagina- not exactly sure that just being female means you're blameless.

 

Women and children can 100% go to a POE and legally they have to be admitted at least until their claim is processed. 

 

The bad elements USE the women and children as cover. Because they know that people can't stomach doing anything to kids or women. It's the same tactic Jihadists use. 

 

Majority are also Men. Not that excuses killing innocent people. But again, truly innocent people can apply for asylum at a port of entry. If they have nothing to hide, why are they sneaking through the Rio Grande at witching hour?

 

My views are draconian, sure, what would you suggest? Tolerate the senseless massacre of true Americans?

 

Put a notice out that lethal force will be used at non POEs. Anyone who still comes has something to hide

[Flame Dragon]

The alternative is to let the worst elements in as well. Furthermore, there was a story about how a woman hid drugs in a bag in her vagina- not exactly sure that just being female means you're blameless.

 

Women and children can 100% go to a POE and legally they have to be admitted at least until their claim is processed. 

 

The bad elements USE the women and children as cover. Because they know that people can't stomach doing anything to kids or women. It's the same tactic Jihadists use. 

 

Majority are also Men. Not that excuses killing innocent people. But again, truly innocent people can apply for asylum at a port of entry. If they have nothing to hide, why are they sneaking through the Rio Grande at witching hour?

 

My views are draconian, sure, what would you suggest? Tolerate the senseless massacre of true Americans?

I'd never accept security on back of dead people simply fleeing persecution looking for a better life.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'd never accept security on back of dead people simply fleeing persecution looking for a better life.

Let me pose a different question. You have a 100 people. One is a terrorist. There are women, children, elderly in the crowd. The terrorist has inoculated himself with a weaponized bio-agent. You cannot find out which one is the terrorist. If you do nothing, millions will die, if you kill everyone in the room, the number of dead stops at 100. What do you do?

 

A more real life example, should the US not have shot down the 9/11 planes if they could have?

To me American Lives > Any other life. Not gonna apologize for that. American gave me life. Not Mexico. 

[Phantom Roxas]

Let me pose a different question. You have a 100 people. One is a terrorist. There are women, children, elderly in the crowd. The terrorist has inoculated himself with a weaponized bio-agent. You cannot find out which one is the terrorist. If you do nothing, millions will die, if you kill everyone in the room, the number of dead stops at 100. What do you do?

 

A more real life example, should the US not have shot down the 9/11 planes if they could have?

To me American Lives > Any other life. Not gonna apologize for that. American gave me life. Not Mexico. 

 

After you complained about Striker using a strawman, why did you think that your strawman here was going to be the more persuasive argument?

 

You would be killing at least 99 innocent people because one of them might be a terrorist. And yes, I say "might", because if cannot find out which one is the terrorist, how do you even know that one of them is a terrorist? That isn't helping security, that's just gambling with people's lives, and justifying ethnic cleansing. You're using hypothetical scenarios to appeal to fear, rather than anything factual.

[Horu]

Here's a hint: if a terrorist were covered in a chemical agent designed to kill people, it would come off in the river and you would spot them right away and hopefully be able to save the other 99.

[Phantom Roxas]

Here's a hint: if a terrorist were covered in a chemical agent designed to kill people, it would come off in the river and you would spot them right away and hopefully be able to save the other 99.

 

That's a good point.

 

It's almost like Winter's hypothetical scenario was designed in bad faith because he's spent the past few pages advocating for ethnic cleansing, and this "solution" conveniently allows him to justify that.

 

I don't condone murder. If drugs are a concern, Border Patrol can detain and search refugees before giving them asylum. Also, people seeking asylum are likely running from cartels. So jusr shooting everyone trying to cross means you'll likely only kill 1 or 2 cartel members for every 50 innocents. So would willingly kill 100 innocent people, some of which are children, just for the purpose of killing a maximum of 5 cartel members?

By the way, I noticed that Winter never answered your question here.

[Horu]

Also, smuggling drugs through water would likely ruin them. Cartels have more effective ways to get drugs cross the border. Much easier to pay off dirty Patrol officers to keep the dog off their vehicles or maybe disquise their trucks to look like company vehicles. Remember, Trump is fighting a drug war. You have the pentagon and congress to deal with terrorism. Trump thinks shutting down the border is the most effective way to keep drugs out of the country. The problem here is this: The majority of drugs that cops have trouble with are drugs that can be produced in your kitchen. If cartels produced street drugs, they would just be able to ship the igredients across the border. But since you're talking drugs that come from plants, they could be shipped as seeds and mixed with the seeds from other plants.